Talk:Slavery/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

African slave trade images

@Musicfan122:, Regarding this edit it seems that the consensus is against you - diff. I agree with @Balolay: that this article is maybe too Euro-American-centric. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The image is informative and provides the reader with an important perspective on the subject of slavery in non-western cultures. Also, the Arab slave trade existed for much longer period of time than the Atlantic slave trade, but the later seems to be the main focus of the article. Confining the former to a single section is not good. I don't see any reason why @Musicfan122: keeps opposing this addition. Regards. Balolay (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is far from "Euro-American-centric", you seeing it as that is WP:POV. As said in the edit summery, an image of a 19th century Arab slave trading caravan is already provided in a section discussing the matter. Musicfan122 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Musicfan122 as I have already explained, the image present in the Arab section this different from the picture I have added in the lead.

Secondly, can you please elaborate, why you are removing the image about Christian slaves that has been in the article for 7 years without consensus? Regards Balolay (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And I explained to you why it's not different, but you're not listening. It's the same way with Algiers image. You're one revert away from a 3RR, I'd be careful if I were you. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Musicfan122 no you haven't explained anything. There is no wiki rule that says that 2 images related to a single topic can't be in the same article. You need to respect the opinions of other wiki editors.Balolay (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not going to discuss this extensively right now but the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc and even the article cover a lot about these topics but we only choose the Arab slavery to represent in the lead? I think this is a POV pushing. SharabSalam (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• @ SharabSalam can you provide credible sources proving your claims. This article is about slavery in general. This practice was prevalent around the world not just the west & still remains prevalent in some Arab nations.

Also historians have suggested as many as 17 million slaves were involved in the Arab slave trade. Balolay (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I invite SharabSalam and Musicfan122 to respond to the arguments put forward by me and Tobby72. Otherwise the images will be restored. Regards Balolay (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been 24 hours and you are already threatening to start an edit war. go on.. but be ready for a proposal topic ban if you did that because you are obviously pushing POV and putting disruptive edits into articles. Anyway the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy. Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better. Again your behaviour is going to get you banned so I advise you to stop this behaviour that only shows how you are trying to push your POV. --SharabSalam (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• @ SharabSalam, thanks for your reply.

You said "the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy."

Actually the BBC source I mentioned clearly states that Muslim slave traders were responsible for the enslavement of 17 million people. So I am not the one who is cherry picking. This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery.

You said "Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better."

Can you please explain what is your definition of a neutral image? Also I haven't heard of a wiki rule which says that not having an image in the lead is preferred. Infact most wiki articles have multiple images in the lead. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balolay: Well first of all I want to play a little bit fallacy detective game here you said "This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here although the The transatlantic slave trade was the biggest deportation in history[1] and The Europeans often gave goods in advance to their African trade partners. African trade partners are usually muslims because of the spread of Islam. The growing demand for slaves from ((Europe)) meant that the ((African suppliers)) increased their activities[2] but as I said thats not my argument thats not even what I said in the edit summary that you might be referring to.

I am surprised that you are asking for the rule in wikipedia and I have gave it to you in this talk page but I guess you didnt pay attention. Anyway here I qoute from MOS:LEADIMAGE "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to!

while we are here trying to disscuss this issue you are editting and adding images into other articles leads that are related to the dispute [3]

[4] and more in your contrubtions anyone can see that and threatening to restore your POV in this article without seeking consensus. Also without mentioning that you dont care for the neutrality of wikipedia [5]. This behavour isnt healthy for the community of wikipedia and should be taken into consideration before asking us to disscuss here.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• @SharabSalam "I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here"

Actually you did say it [6] and your edit was immediately reverted by an admin.

Secondly, the BBC source I gave clearly states that 17 million people were enslaved by Muslim traders in different parts of the world. This doesn't take into account whether Arab traders acted as intermediatries in transatlantic slave trade. So I don't know what are you talking about.

Regarding this [7], can you provide me even a single valid justification for removing such an important image besides it being a burden on the lead. There is no denying that photography helped a lot in ending slavery. Even if it was indeed a burden (which it isn't), why didn't you remove any other image besides this one, shows your bias in terms of Arab/Islamic perspective... doesn't it?

• regarding this [8], I made a mistake and other editor reverted it as good faith edits. I don't know what's the problem now. Using the same logic can I ask you why you did this [9]? Balolay (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say this in the talk page nor in the article and I didn't say "Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument.

You completely dismissed and ignored what I argue about; that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads. And yes I removed images that aren't neutral nor related to the article that you put in the leads while we are discussing this issue here. You just added that image just 1 day ago and you are asking me to delete other images other than yours the one that have been there for decades --SharabSalam (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• @SharabSalam" I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument."

That's where you are wrong. Provide me credible sources saying western culture is 'more' prone to slavery and we are ready to argue. Infact Slavery has been entrenched in the Arab culture since pre-Islamic times.

• "that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads." Using that logic most of article isn't about the transatlantic either.
• Also I want you to justify the removal of 2nd Image which has been here for 7 years now and has been historically very important. Balolay (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay

For the third time that's not my argument

I am not trying to justify that image and I never deleted it and if you scroll up in the talk page you see that all of what I was arguing about is the lead images that you are constantly reverting and refusing to listen but edit warring--SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for pointing that out.Balolay (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balolay: Did you read what I said about MOS:LEADIMAGE? SharabSalam (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Eperoton Could you please give Balolay an advice about the lead image? I ((think)) he disrespect me so much for some reason and respect you for some reason.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam I have thoroughly read MOS:LEADIMAGE, and this image doesn't break any rules mentioned there. Your primary concern throughout this thread is that this Image refers to Arab slave trade when in reality Europeans did most of the trade, which is factually incorrect and logically incoherent.

Regarding Musicfan122's (recently blocked as a socpuppet troll) argument that there is already an image in Arab section, that's incorrect too since both images are related but are entirely different from geographical and temporal sense. And there is no wiki rule that says two images from same topic can't be used in a wiki article.

Thirdly, please stop tagging other editors and wasting their useful time. Regards. Balolay (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. I am not talking about European trade or anything did you read this? "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to! btw you are the one who is wasting my time with this willy-nilly additions to the lead section --SharabSalam (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam you said No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. Actually this thread was started by Tobby72 in response to Musicfan122's disruptive editing who was trying to remove this image and another 7 year old one due to his pro-Arab bias. You joined in only later. No other editor objected to its addition when it was first added.

Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . If the same logic is applied than none of the Images about European slavery should be in the article except in the relevant section i.e., trans-atlantic slave trade because Europeans weren't responsible for majority of the slave trade either! Balolay (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Balolay: now you are totally wasting my time with this nonsense debate I am talking about the lead image and this is a wikipedian policy it should apply everywhere. I am not putting any photo in the lead about European or trans-atlantic anywhere. I dont waste my time adding images into the lead to push POV--SharabSalam (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam so now you are retracting from your original stance which was "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc" and now saying there shouldn't be any image about Arab or European slave trade in the lead altogether. Well, that's not fair and it shows your lack of interest in a productive debate. Regards Balolay (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

for the last time my argument is not about this. I am wondering whethar you see what I am saying or not? I am saying this Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . --SharabSalam (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

you combined two qoutes together to muniplate what I said? XD--SharabSalam (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery Firstly, the image doesn't mention 'Muslim' slavery for God's sake. It's interesting that you are trying to divorce Islam from Arab slavery on Arab slave trade yet here you are making it a religious issue. Those Arab traders could well be Christians you do know that do you? You can't have it both ways.

Secondly please stop making 20% claim it's annoying. The BBC source I give earlier gives an estimate of 17 million compared to trans-atlantic slave trade's figure of 21 million. Balolay (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?I said 20% of the article is about Arab slavery!!

@Drmies and Oshwah: How can I have a "productive" debate with this editor if he/she manipulates what I say? Could you tell him to stop this strawman fallacy? --SharabSalam (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! You clearly mentioned multiple times that muslims did 20% of the slavery. Bbc source gives 17 million figure but doesn't give percentage figure. I just want a source proving that. Throwing random figures around isn't helpful.You are clearly basing the entire argument of this image not being representative of the article on that 20% figure. I want to know the source?! What's wrong in that? I too want to invite @Drmies and Oshwah: to see the ridiculous claims this editor is making here similar to here here. Balolay (talk)

again look in to the context of what I am talking about. The article is about Slavery in general. 20% of the article is about Muslim slavery and again I am going to qoute from wikipedia policy which says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" also says Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. I hope you get my point now--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that no where the image makes a claim about 'Muslim' slavery. Those Arab traders could well have been Christians unless you believe it has something to do with Islam than you have to retract your statements from Talk:Arab slave trade. Stop making it a religion issue! Balolay (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, Arab slavery. so what? still the article is not about Arab slavery. thats your comeback argument? Do you realize that you still have not responded to what MOS:LEADIMAGE says?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, Balolay, just close this section, start an RfC with the question of a. whether this image (which I just removed) is appropriate for the lead, and MAYBE b. if any image, and if so which image, would be appropriate for the lead. This should not be hard. You're both edit warring, you're both likely to be blocked, you're both arguing about something between yourselves that should be hashed out in a larger forum. Stop it; start an RfC. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies, this image was firstly 2 months ago by him and since then he and another editor kept editwarring and I also came late and also become part of the editwarring. He refuses to start a disscusion and each time he gets reverted he revert and ask us to take it to the talk page. RfC as I also suggested earlier an in edit summary, is a good solution. I am going to start it. Thanks for your suggestion.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Responding to a ping... I agree with Drmies, this seems like a good candidate for an RfC. An RfC on whether the disputed image is appropriate for the lead is a good fit for WP:RFCBRIEF. I'm less sure including Drmies' "MAYBE" suggestions in the RfC would be a good move at this point. On the one hand, there hasn't yet been an attempt to resolve those questions with a narrower audience. But on the other hand, it might be good to get broader input on this point, as this topic is of broad interest. Eperoton (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton, I also agree on what Drmies said. I am just frustrated of adding images to the lead or articles just like that randomly as you can see from his edits he dose that a lot and I think it should stop. He should start reading MOS:IRELEV and MOS:LEADIMAGE because I dont think he is following this policy. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies Please note that Balolay use different types of fallacies. He has used strawman fallacy a lot in this discussion and it's really annoying. Take a look at his replies. He misquote what I said like he combined two different quotes from me that were taken out of context and replied to them. He also misrepresents my argument in his replies. Please tell him to stop this. It's really annoying.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  Being straw-manned is indeed annoying, but I've read through most of this, and I don't see Balolay doing that. It's hard to follow because neither of you seem to know how to thread a conversation properly here. I post. Then you post, with ":" in front of it. Then I post again (or someone else replies to you), and start that post with "::". You make another reply, the fourth post in series; that starts with ":::". Someone else replies to the second post (the one that started with ":"); their post goes at the bottom of the stack, indented with "::". If the original post started with "*", then the reply is "*:", and the next one is "*::". This is not difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  He has misrepresented my argument saying that I am arguing that 20% of Slavery is done by Arabs which is not my argument. My argument was that 20% of (the article) is about Arab slavery. Also he combined two quotes from me in one quote and took them out of context when he qoute me from two different comments in one qoute taken out of context saying

  "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc"

  and I have said in many of my replies that Western slavery is not my argument. Also the problem of replies is mainly because of him not putting ":" in his replies so I add ":" in my reply and get a reply again with no ":" I have tried to fix some these comments here--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate sourcing #158

Source #158 is written regarding white indentures in the new world, and is not accurately being used here as a source. Many Africans who arrived in North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came under force and threat of violence or death, not under contract as indentured servants.[158]

Many Africans who arrived in North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came under contract as indentured servants.[158] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.27.190 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Number of African slaves in Indian Ocean / Arab slave trade

Under "Modern History" > "Africa" the number of African slaves in the Arab slave trade is given on the basis of a single source - a short and unsourced summary from BBC. On such an important and potentially controversial issue I would think it would be important to have better and more specific and scholarly sources. Not knowing anything about the subject myself (that's why I looked up this Wikipedia article), I still made an excursion on the net to see if there was anything better out there. Here are a few potential sources that may contain the relevant facts:

1) A longer and more detailed article from BBC.

2) A popular book: The East African Slave Trade: The History and Legacy of the Arab Slave Trade and the Indian Ocean Slave Trade by Charles River Editors (who is not a person but a "boutique digital publisher"). A popular book, it seems, but it may contain an interesting bibliography.

3) Articles in a scholarly journal: Journal of African Development, Spring/Fall 2011.

4) A collection of scholarly articles published by UNESCO: The African Slave Trade from the 15th to the 19th century. Several of the articles collected in this volume deal with Arab / Indian Ocean slave trade.

5) Book (at least semi-scholarly): Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal (see Wikipedia article about the author for his credentials).

I hope some of this is helpful. Filursiax (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Identification, image

@Rjensen I moved the image to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me#Orientalism so that it is still available, but in a more appropriate context

Here is some literature on slavery and slave-trade in the Middle East, to prove that my comment on Gérôme's representation of the slave market is not just "politicized personal opinion": Toledano (1982, 48–54, 106–7) discusses 19th century descriptions of slave markets in Istanbul and other cities of the Ottoman Empire. Also see Toledano (1998, 4-16).

For the question of historic accuracy in Gérôme's paintings of the slave market (and other oriental scenes) see, e.g., Lees (2012).

To sum up what these (and other scholars) have found out: from the 1850s on, slaves were traded in the houses of slave traders, because the slave trade was forbidden in public. Even before the ban, enslaved women were not publicly exposed in the streets when shown to potential buyers, but sitting in chambers. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were naked. Gérôme's paintings can be considered to be accurate only when it comes to the architecture in the background, for which he used photographs and his own sketches. The scenes and interactions taking place in these settings were a product of his imagination. They were erotic fantasies. The Oriental background served to make depictions of nudity legitimate for European viewers and buyers. The "Others'" cruel treatment of women and slaves was used as a pretext to paint, and look at paintings of, naked women.

This is why Gérôme's painting is inappropriate here. I do not say it should be deleted from Wikipedea, but it needs to be contextualized. Pumslau (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Pumslau

In addition, not only slaves were barefoot in the Middle East in the 19th century. On historical photographs, e.g. from the collection of Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one can see many free men walking barefoot. The image is therefore not useful to illustrate "identification" of slaves in the Middle East, where wearing shoes or sandals marked the social status of a person, but did not necessarily serve to distinguish free from enslaved persons. Pumslau (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Pumslau

References

@Julian von Bredow: Please, be aware of edit warring policy. As you do not respond to my arguments in the talk page but continue reverting my edits, I might consider reporting on it. WP:3RR broken already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumslau (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rjensen and Julian von Bredow please participate in this discussion. Pumslau please stop reverting because you are the one who introduced the bold edit. I would advise you not to report anything and to seek consensus first per WP:BRD.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion Request: The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. declined) as premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion through edit summaries will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

There's no good reason to use the fanciful Gérôme image here; now replaced by the much more scrupulous reportage of David Roberts. Ewulp (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Extremely incorrect sentence needs changing

This sentence needs to change BADLY:

-The first country to abolish slavery was the United Kingdom, where slavery was non-existent by 1200 AD and was legally prohibited under the Slave Trade Act of 1807 (although slavery remained legal in some British colonies until 1843).

This is wrong on MANY counts:

1. The United Kingdom did not exist in 1200, so already wrongly stated. For this to make any sense we have to look at England, Welsh polities, Ulster and Scotland separately.

2. None of them explicitly banned slavery by 1200 - it died out de facto by around 1200, but this was not unique to Britain. England had a prohibition on the slave *trade*.

3. Several countries simply did not have slavery at the time either. If we are including former state entities (or those which banned it then later had it), we need to consider ancient nations that didn't have slavery per se, even possibly including the Achaemenids.

4. The abolition of the slave trade in 1807 post-dates the slave trade ban in France, though France brought it back. Denmark banned the slave trade in 1803. Other parts of the world weren't involved in a slave trade. Britain was earlier than other major slave trading powers, so if the editor is a patriotic Brit they can be proud of that if they wish, but as it stands it is far from correct.

5. Going the other way, the ban on the slave trade is *not* when slavery was banned in Britain. England annulled slavery retrospectively in the Somerset vs. Stewart case in 1772, and Scotland banned slavery in 1799. The status of slavery in Ireland is a more controversial one, though the "United Kingdom" only began by that name in 1800. Again, these were not the *first*.

6. More a technicality, but slavery was abolished throughout all British colonies in 1833 effective by 1838, not 1843. 1843 saw its abolition in India, but India was not a British colony at the time, but under the East India Company - precisely why the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act did not apply there and other areas of East India Company rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.244.117 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ADD LEGAL DEFINITION OF SLAVERY?

California Penal Code 181 and use of word CUSTODY by Sheriff Probation and Parole Officers who are paid money to hold in involuntary servitude (this could arguably be Forcing people to report for duty/work/appearance/jury duty? without just compensation) The Justice System also caps wages at around .10cents and hour and wage garnishes that amount and money sent from relatives. I think the minumum was if not abided by and the maximum wage is around .31cents. I seek to employ prisoners! link at tiny. cc/jointventureproject see Joint Venture Project of CA TITLE 9 CCR Ca Code Regulations

Pasted/cited from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-181.html Every person who holds, or attempts to hold, any person in involuntary servitude, or assumes, or attempts to assume, rights of ownership over any person, or who sells, or attempts to sell, any person to another, or receives money or anything of value, in consideration of placing any person in the custody, or under the power or control of another, or who buys, or attempts to buy, any person, or pays money, or delivers anything of value, to another, in consideration of having any person placed in his or her custody, or under his or her power or control, or who knowingly aids or assists in any manner any one thus offending, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7001:200:44EA:4BB0:2770:A417 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Far-left propaganda

Please remove the far-left propaganda in the "Terminology" section of the article, specifically the entire second paragraph and its nonsense about the word "slave" being somehow offensive to leftists. Slate is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:DC06:2FA8:A094:C00C (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1794 abolition in France

Thers a single sentence about France abolishing slavery crammed in between stuff about abolition attempts iin various American colonies. I call that anglocentric. Heck it was surely one of the things tat inspired the French people to endure the French Terror and stand up to the English and Germans even before Napoleon came to power.Rich (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

I ask for removal of citation 155 titled:" Indentured Servitude in Colonial America. Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources." as it is just a personal blog with a vague bibliography. (in case, editors should cite references therein) 2001:B07:A12:B90D:5DDE:4A71:135D:F7F3 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The information is useful, and it is used for a rather non-exceptional claim. It works well as a link of convenience and if somebody has access to those sources to check then that would great, but I wouldn't deprive them of the opportunity to check up on these, so I'd rather keep the link as, I said, a link of convenience. What I am going to do is copy the bibliography here for future reference.

Extended content

James Curtis Ballagh. White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia. Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1895. Fredrick M. Binder & David M. Reimers. The way we lived: Essays and Documents in American Social History, Vol. 1; 1607-1877. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1992. Phyllis Cunnington; Costume of Household Servants from the Middle Ages to 1900. London, UK; Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1974. Joseph Doddridge; Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing Co., 1996. David W. Galson; White Servatude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981. W. Preston Haynie (Ed.) Northumberland County Virginia Records of Indentured Servants 1650-1795. Heritage Books, Inc., 1996. Peter Kolchin. American Slavery 1619-1877. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1993. Abbot Emerson Smith; Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607-1776. Chapel Hill, NC.: University of North Carolina, 1947. Warren B. Smith: White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1961. Charles Woodmason; Journal of C.W. Clerk.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Please change "The word slave is derived from the Greek verb skyleúo, 'to strip a slain enemy'." to "The word slave is derived from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages." Please, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave#Etymology for sources. It was well established a long time ago. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Probbably not. Greek is often older than latin. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Latin word is from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos), see that entry and Slav for more." You can read it directly in the wiktionary article I linked.

Ok, I offer a rephrased sentence: "The word slave is derived from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos) (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages." Крылатый вепрь (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I might add. The source for this "to strip a slain enemy" etymology is claimed to be "An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, S (1891) by Friedrich Kluge" in teh Article. And boom: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_German_Language/Sklave It actually says nothing like that. It says exactly what I'm trying to say, which is pretty obvious thing established a long time ago. This "to strip a slain enemy" is completely bogus.Крылатый вепрь (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Said information was removed a few days ago by JimKaatFan, allegedly due to the references not supporting the written text. Perhaps this revision should be reverted, and the references from Wiktionary should be added to support said text. An even better idea would be not to remove text not supported by a source without even trying to find a source that supports it. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if I take this opinion with a grain of salt. You have edited content on Wikipedia a total of 5 times? I removed the material because I checked out the sources and they did not support the article as it was previously written. I rewrote that sentence, and drew upon the source that's currently there to write it. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You sure you checked the sources in the article? Because you checked something else, check it again, here it is: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_German_Language/Sklave This is the source for the today article version. It says about Slav. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be reverted. Not with the "At a very early medieval date, when Christian government in most of Europe had collapsed, trading expeditions to eastern Europe brought back Slavs as slaves." in it. This is wrong. What christian government? What early medieval date? Slavs are slaves, because Slavs were a primary good in Europe throughout the middle ages up until the black slavery began. Not some "trading expeditions".Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• In fairness, you did completely change the meaning of the paragraph - it stated that that the old interpretation was 'x' and you reworded it to say 'x' is true. The remaining source is from the 19th century. There are sources such as: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter1.shtml ; https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/slave ; https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave ; which point to 'Slav' as the origin. I think your edit is certainly controversial in that sense. Are there recent sources which refute the 'Slav' origin of the word? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • His 19th century source doesn't even support his edit. It points to the version of Raito wa Kira desu. There is alredy like 4 people in this discussion and none have read a single link I provided. And completely ignore, that sources in the article doesn't even support what is written in the article. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there's 4 separate people in this discussion. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sklavos < the ethnic name Slav is the only reputable etymology, as established above. --Macrakis (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update - is everyone happy with the current state of the included definition and the cited sources? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

The first slave was a white man. Toga bbbbb (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

There was previously some discussion over the lead image that was archived here: Talk:Slavery/Archive_6#African_slave_trade_images. I don't see any conclusion, but turns out one of the participants (Balolay) made a sockpuppet to get their preferred image in. I'm going to remove that. I'm also going to try another image that I hope will be far less contentious. If it seems we can't agree upon an image, then we can leave the lead without an image as there are plenty of images in the article itself.VR _talk 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Please add a link to "Runaway slaves or Fugitive slaves in the United States to the see also section. Also please make a new paragraph covering fugitive slaves in general. Oddbad the Bad (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Oddbad the Bad (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Link added to Slavery in the United States#See also, as the article is specific to the US. @Oddbad the Bad:, if you would like such a paragraph, please create another request with the completed text, with citations. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Slavery in French Empire

The reference to Slavery being abolished in the French Empire in 1794 is misleading. The institution was restored in the Empire by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802 and only abolished finally in the French Empire in 1848. http://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0065 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Commentary on images

I suggest to remove or add critical commentary to fictionalized paintings depicting real or fictionalized historical events. Especially since some of these images are rife with colonialist stereotypes, commentary might be well advised. I very much appreciate the authors' work on this article and on Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.6.37 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

About Slavs and slaves

The version about the origin of the word slave from the self-designation of the Slavs is absolutely ridiculous. At the same time, I do not deny that the Slavs could fall into slavery to other peoples. But in order for the self-designation of the Slavs to replace the original word for slaves, the number of Slavic slaves in this case must be in the millions. And yes, by the time the Slavs appeared on the political map of Europe, the institution of slavery in Byzantium was already in decline.--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what is said in reliable sources. There are several. Attic Salt (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you knowingly ignore another version of the origin of the word and call it outdated?--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have content that can be reliably sourced, then I encourage you to add it to the article. However, the material you have repeatedly tried to remove is very well-sourced. Whether or not you agree with it doesn't matter. Attic Salt (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is exclusively your subjective point of view.--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, others are right. See footnote 10 here, for example. But of course it goes a little deeper - see about Kholop - here. That is in English. As about Russian language, even the word "to work" (rabotat') originates from word slave ("rab"). Moreover. in the Russian translation of the Bible (and Russian Orthodox teaching) word "servant" [of God] was incorrectly translated to Russian as "rab bozhii", i.e. "the slave of God". That is a perception of themselves as slaves. My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Footwear and the Prodigal Son

According to the Bible, shoes have been considered badges of freedom since antiquity: "But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put [it] on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on [his] feet" (Luke 15:22). This aspect can be viewed as an informal law in areas where slavery existed as any person sighted barefoot in public would be conclusively regarded as a slave.
I don't see anything in this passage relevant to the claim that "shoes have been considered badges of freedom since antiquity", merely that the destitute son (who is presumably lacking shoes and decent clothes) can now be properly dressed. There also isn't any citation to support this interpretation. I would suggest removing this paragraph as OR. Iapetus (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This article should include the most prominent slave name.--EKantarovich (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. You may need to elaborate somewhat. And your comment probably needs it's own section. I would have helped, but I didn't know what to call it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Inherited status as slave wrongly represented

Under the “chattel slavery” area it states that typically children inherited slave status from the mother, and it links to another Wikipedia article for further explanation, and that explanation contradicts the simple statement on this Slavery page.

“Prior to the adoption of the doctrine in England's colonies, English common law had held that among English subjects, a child's basic legal status followed the father, based on the concept that a married couple were a unit headed by the father.”

It goes on to show that it was the colonies of Britain who made this change,

‘The legal doctrine of partus was part of colonial law passed in 1662 by the Virginia House of Burgesses, and by other colonies soon afterward. It held that "all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother. ... "’

I recommend a change to this page in some form moving from

“Typically, under the chattel slave system, children inherited slave status via the mother (partus sequitur ventrem).”

To

“It was common under the chattel slave system for children to inherit slave status via the father. In 1662, the British colony of Virginia passed a law formally adopting partus sequitur ventrem, giving a child slave status from its mother.” Timshadel (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Definition

I see editors like Edwin trinh14 do their best to take the notion of ownership out of the definition of slavery, suggesting that slavery is actually just like working under a mean employer. I find that very problematic, not to say revolting. Replacing a well-known concept with its metaphorical counterpart as if that is the "real" meaning repeats the kind of nonsense we see online and from some politicians (Bill Barr] comes to mind) and slaveowners (the nonsense written up in Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania). Drmies (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I support reverting to your last revision. Going back to at least 2014, this article's definition has been that slavery = ownership of people. I think that is still correct, and any change should be with clear consensus supported by scholarly sources. It is also more than just forced labor. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The idea of people as property sounds like a legal concept. But slavery can happen even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

But 'labor without consent' excludes indentured servitude, which this article describes as the most common form of slavery today. Also, 'labor' is limiting and would seem to exclude sex slavery. It's not controlling, but Oxford Languages (what you get when you google a definition) defines a slave as: "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." Britannica, the Cambridge Dictionary, &c. also call slavery the ownership of a person who is forced to obey. It's not perfect but I think the basic concept of a person being treated as property and forced to obey (not just perform labor) is the best definition we have to work with, despite the fact that slavery is a broad concept with a lot of different permutations throughout history (I mean, are indentured servants "owned"? Depends, I guess). And while 'property' does give it a legal air, it ultimately just means something belonging to someone. And we can really only go by what sources say - we cannot simply use original research to craft a definition we like without scholarly support. Plus, the property definition is the status quo, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Using your phrase “treated as property” or “treated like property” would be fine, but saying a slave always IS property would only reflect one sense of the word, and even the Oxford Dictionary acknowledges the word has more than the one sense of a person who is the legal property of another. Zillions of sources say slavery happens even where it’s illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree - there is certainly slavery today and (on information and belief) it is illegal in every country. I am content/neutral on the current language - I think the real issue was with the "where a person is denied the opportunity to leave whilst performing labor for a party" definition, which you fixed. Thanks for the edits and cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Great talk guys. The only reason why I'm opposed to the idea of just defining slavery as just people being owned and treated/viewed as property is because most employees are seen as human resources and to some individuals, that can be seen as "commodification of labor" and "dehumanising". So I gotta take that into account and make it clear on what precisely is slavery. I absolutely oppose slavery as well but at the same time, the truth should always be prioritised. Edwin trinh14 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I’d go like this: “where one party cannot quit in performing labor for serving another party and are viewed and is treated as property.” Serving is more general, and covers sex slavery (which many people wouldn’t consider “labor”). And I don’t know that it adds much to say they’re “viewed as” property, viewed by whom? Not by the law or by society, if slavery is illegal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are some dictionary definitions: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.[10] a person held in servitude as the chattel of another [11] a person who is legally owned by someone else and has to work for that person [12] A slave is someone who is the property of another person and has to work for that person.[13] "Chattel slavery" is different from serfdom because a serf is tied to the land while a chattel slave can be sold or otherwise moved. Given those common definitions, being owned as property and being forced to work are the two defining characteristics. As for the issue of legality, I'm not sure that illegally capturing someone and forcing them to work is the same thing. The current text says that a slave is one "who cannot quit their service to another person and is treated like property." I don't think that's complete because "service" is too mild and adding the word "treated" implies they are not actual property. It'd be simpler and more accurate to say "who is owned as property by another person and is forced to work for them." Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of our sources use definitions of slavery that are much broader than the traditional definitions. The Guardian[14] and New International[15] articles both cite Anti-Slavery International, which apparently considers any form of forced labor or forced marriage to be slavery, even if ownership is not a factor.[16] So this article says that 40 million people are currently enslaved, but the source says only 24.9 million of those involve forced labor, the rest being forced marriages. Maybe there should be a distinction between the traditional and modern definitions. Traditional slavery involves ownership and forced labor, and was legal. Modern slavery is illegal and involves a wider variety of coercion, or so it would appear. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting comments. You got four definitions of “slave” from four sources, but those four sources offer more than four definitions. For example, the Collins Dictionary also says, “a person who is forced to work for another against his or her will.” That would cover both legal and illegal slavery. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that slavery could be legal or illegal, in a de facto sense. But for millennia, slavery was a legal institution. And no one considered forced marriage to be slavery. Today, both of those facts have changed. That's why I think the best approach may be to provide two definitions, or at least somehow indicate that the term has shifted meaning. In the current version, the 2nd paragraph is given over to an expansive definition that includes anyone who has "limited freedom of movement" or is "dehumanised".[17] That may be the definition today, but it wasn't the definition for most of human history. That's why I think we should separate the modern term from the historical term. No one definition can cover both adequately. I think if we preface the 2nd paragraph by giving the current definition, as used by these sources, then it'll be easier. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, since the definition in the first sentence is cited, we might as well consult that source. It says that in 1926 the League of Nations, after considerable discussion, defines slavery as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the rights of ownership are exercise."[18] That's a bureaucratic definition, meant to accommodate colonial powers, The definition goes on to specifically exclude lesser forms of servitude, including marriage. However I can't see, via Google, enough of the book to see what it says about the current definition. I am able to see the conclusion, which doesn't really help us much here because it talks about the process of defining the term rather than coming up with a pithy definition of its own. I'm not sure that citation is really appropriate unless we quote it verbatim. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm quoting from that book, let me add another tidbit. Suzanne Miers, author of Slavery in the Twentieth Century: The Evolution of a Global Problem, is quoted as saying that the term "slavery" has been used in recent years "to cover such a wide range of practices as to be virtually meaningless" (p.220). That's a good reason for distinguishing "classical slavery" from "modern slavery". Mobi Ditch (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m thinking that the first paragraph of our article is okay, but maybe you can make changes after that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

intro improvement

In the second intro paragraph where it says "in the unindustrialised countries, enslavement by debt bondage is a common form of enslaving a person, " the use of term "unindustrialised" is both unnecessary and false. Enslavement by debt bondage exist in both industrialised and non-industrialised nations. And the reference article "Slavery in the 21st century" used to support this statement doesn't reflect this to be a practice used in unindustrialised countries or any specific type of countries. XdaOfficial (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

forced marriage

Innapropriate use of term "Devdasi" in Forced Marriage section and also culturally wrong to use the same in sentence with words Sacred Prostitution and fetish slaves. Term devdasi doesn't relate to any sexual activity whatsoever and is a religious term which go along the lines of being a Sadhu or life in servitude to god, The term also exost for men who chose to live life learning about god and is called Devdas. The article is clearly written a unpleasant tone towards some specific cultures and regions of world. That is innapropriate use of religious terms in conjunction with completely harsh words which are also wrong. Term Devdasi -Dev means diety and dasi means "life in servitude" not slave (das is for men and dasi is for women), any women/man can become devdas or devdasi and not be slave, i can be a Engineer and devdas at same time wothout being slave to anyone same applies to women. Theres a surname/caste in India labelled Das which gets confused with term slave which is wrong, most people with this surname are prominent fugures and are not inferior either by caste or economy, but this name/suffix gets confused with slave as it has multiple meaning/translations which creates misunderstanding. Paragraph stating "Human trafficking primarily involves women and children forced into prostitution" is incorrect too, as per ILO research (2017) of the 16 million estimated human trafficked individuals around 4.8 million were trafficked for sexual exploitation which definitely indicate it is not primary reason primary reason. XdaOfficial (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statements about slavery sentiment in US should be reworded

According to the current text "In 2018, the Orlando Sentinel reported some private Christian schools in Florida as teaching students a creationist curriculum which includes assertions such as, “most black and white southerners had long lived together in harmony” and that “power-hungry individuals stirred up the people” leading to the Civil Rights Movement.[218]"

It seems unnecessary to label this as "creationist" curriculum. Creationist theory at the core does not advocate slavery, however this statement suggests that there is a relationship between the two. The existence of flawed rhetoric in curriculum practiced by a group claiming to be creationist does not indicate any agreement with others following creationist thought. That word and subsequent hyperlink should be removed.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether this news report has any bearing in this context. The existence of a report exposing flawed educational materials in one locality does not demonstrate any further information about the progress of slavery in the generalized context of the United States. The citation itself provides little information to enable the reader to interpret what that information means in this context. It does not provide a balanced or expanded perspective of the US on the whole and therefore seems out of place in a section regarding the generalized United States. Regardless of how egregious, ridiculous or inaccurate such a curriculum might be, it does not serve the text of this Wikipedia article to mention this fact and this fact alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.253.130 (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A Mention of Zoroastrianism and its relationship with slavery be included under the section "Abolitionism in Antiquity"

The Zoroastrian faith for the most part specifically forbade slavery, and while Iranian kings were known to relocate captured people, they never enslaved them. I lack the necessary writing skills to add a section, but perhaps someone with better skills could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.120.216 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union

This section is about the inclusion of the GULAG without any citation to it being a slave camp. There's also no mention of «slave» on that article. @Vallee01:, post the sources here. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Sources and citations are already present. Des Vallee (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01:, that's not providing sources. «Present» where? BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Two things, first that ping of an old username doesn't work, Des Vallee does. Secondly the information was widely clear however:

See Gulag: Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet regime created many Lagerey (labour camps) in Siberia. Prisoners in Soviet labor camps were worked to death on extreme production quotas, brutality, hunger and harsh elements. Fatality rate was as high as 80% during the first months in many camps. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, died as a direct result of forced labor under the Soviets.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Des Vallee (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Labor camp is not exactly equal to Slavery, that's why there's a different article for it. Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, also doesn't describe them as such. See this. To describe your citations: The first one mentions it as forced labor, the second one is an [[[Austrian School]] academic journal 1, the third also describes them as forced labor, the fourth is from the Center for Independent Sociological Research. The point of this discussion is - should Forced labour be in the article, or not? BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop The point is all citations refer to it as slavery. It's fits all definitions of Slavery and scholarly there is asoulte consensus of it as slavery. Moreover the link you provide to Britincia is considered a stub. You are bringing up your own position into this, not even going into the citations as they all are reliable. It is described as slavery because yes the definition of slavery. You are not even addressing the citations as you can't find any position to dispute them. You are bringing up your own person definition. Des Vallee (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Des Vallee Not quite, only two of them refer to it as slavery, the other refer to them as labour camps. Furthermore, the one of the Austrian School says «Gulag is an example of slavery in the absence of well-defined and enforced property rights in slaves. Inmates in Soviet forced labor camps are not slaves in the strict sense because they do not represent private property (...)». It's easy to find sources referring to them as labour camps:

1. https://books.google.com.br/books?lr=&id=tt2xCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22gulag%22+%22labour%22+&ots=QKJenBf9Zp&sig=ykj6ASyGQ7aAkSAJc7HWuI3e_sQ#v=onepage&q=%22gulag%22%20%22labour%22&f=false
2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668138108411338?journalCode=ceas19
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/131659?seq=1
4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2501047?seq=1

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop It seems you specifically cherry picked information to find this, I mean you literally went to Google Books and typed "Forced Labour" and "Gulag" here it can be seen you specifically are trying to cherry pick information. You clearly didn't check the citations as some of the citations you provide even either as most the citations you provide also has sections that describes the Gulag system as slavery that has to be embarrassing. So either you didn't go over the citations or you just ignored them, both which is not allowed. Des Vallee (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. We already have articles about forced labour, labour camps, unfree labour, and so on. The scope of this article doesn't include these, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Why is there an exception to this labour camp? BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: The article lead and first H2 section mention forced labour as a form of slavery, so I feel that practices of forced labour camps (where of notable scale and historical importance) are within the scope of the article, regardless of whether sources call them "slavery" (calling them "forced labour" is just being more specific). I feel that GULAGs and Nazi forced labour are worthy of inclusion. It might not be bad to have the U.S. in there as well, as the country with the largest population in prisons, where involuntary servitude (another form of slavery) is constitutionally legal. Keep in mind that this article is a bit sprawling and 40% over the maximum recommended article size, so try to keep the summary brief when the subject has a main article. (There's nothing wrong with mentioning these things here; though they have separate articles, they are part of this broader subject and I feel this article would be incomplete without some mention.) This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! –  Reidgreg (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: thanks for answering. I do agree that those two should be included, and replaced the source-less Soviet Union category with properly sourced and accurate information (as shown in the next diff), and also attached a section about forced labour in the US below it. This however prompted an editor to include cases of Human rights violations in China and North Korea, which is not in the scope of this article. Can you give me your opinion on this diff? This edit has been reverted twice for not «mention[ing] the Gulag system, this is whitewashing something you have a long history of» (sic!) and «For a section about Slavery you don't appear to ever discuss it as slavery». Thank you. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel that edit was an improvement. The text could possibly be made more concise, perhaps not mentioning all of those figures and/or examples. I might have focused on forced labour (rather than underpaid labour/sweatshop conditions) in US prisons. The main article for North Korea is human rights, bundling related issues together, but the section here mentions widespread forced labour and keeps the summary fairly tight. At some point, when there is consensus on scope and content, you might want to request a copy edit at WP:GOCE to make it a little more concise and bring the article size down. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think latest version by Des Vallee is shorter and much better. Here is new version suggested by BunnyyHop. It has an obvious problem: it tells about Gulag, but it does not tell anything about Gulag as a variety of slave labor. That aspect needs to be emphasized in the version by Des Valle as well. There are many sources, such as "Notes on the Soviet slave labor reform" [19], this, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg and My very best wishes, thanks for commenting. I completely agree with your points, what made the slave labour in the Gulag distinct from others must be emphasized. I'll try to make a synthesis out of the two materials and we might have just the right amount of everything. I, however, am finding trouble to understand this revert. The first paragraph is not directly related to unfree labour but to the laws of incarceration in China. The second one states what is described in the source as «In March 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang, which identified 83 foreign and Chinese companies as allegedly directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labour transfer programs. » as a fact. I copied from the original article since it's neutrally written and does proper attribution (hence not violating WP:NPOV), but our colleague seems to think that this feeds into a conspiracy theory. What are do you think about this? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I agree that "[i]t might not be bad to have the U.S. in there as well, as the country with the largest population in prisons, where involuntary servitude (another form of slavery) is constitutionally legal." However, My very best wishes reverted here, stating "[t]hat one I think can be removed per talk because cited sources do not say 'slavery'. Welcome to revert my edit if such RS exist and can be provided." But it does mention "slavery." "In September 2016, large, coordinated prison strikes took place in 11 states, with inmates saying they are subjected to poor sanitary conditions, jobs that amount to forced labour, and that the system is a form of modern day slavery." What are your thoughts? Are there better sources that explicitly refer to it as "slavery"? Or was that text fine already? Davide King (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathieu Kerekou

change ((Mathieu Kerekou)) to ((Mathieu Kérékou)) 2601:541:4580:8500:2146:7265:20BD:DE4C (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation Edit

The page number for citation number 74, the article by James Harper, is 341. The full MLA citation from JSTOR is:

Harper, James. “Slaves and Freedmen in Imperial Rome.” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 93, no. 2, 1972, pp. 341–342. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/293259.

Cheers.

KevinMillerLegio (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@KevinMillerLefio:  Done thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I wish that the 10 Commandments were included in this article since they mention slavery.EKantarovich (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@EKantarovich: the reference to the Bible is already in the article under "Early history", and there is a separate article at The Bible and slavery which goes into more detail. Funandtrvl (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Under the "Terminology" section, add a section called "Derogatory Implications".

Use of the ethnonym "slave" is inherently derogatory and offensive to Slavic people. It is a perpetual reminder of a brutal history of anti-Slavic and Slavaphobic oppression. It demeans and lessens the Slavic experience by misappropriating their unique struggle with the unique struggles of other cultural groups. Slavic people have their own history which needs to be their own. Thinkplay (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Thinkplay, it is unclear what you want done. It might be a good suggestion to add an Etymology section about the origin of the word. If you suggeset a neutrally worded short Etymology section about the origin of the word with scholarly secondary sources, I will be glad to propose it for discussion. Best wishes,  // Timothy :: talk  02:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Anythingyouwant, Lfstevens, and My very best wishes:, what do you think about the above and possibly adding an Etymology section?  // Timothy :: talk  02:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, thanks for looking at this. I am a new editor so please correct me if I am not following proper procedure. The article already covered some etymology in the "Terminology" section. However, my intent it is explain why this terminology may not be a good choice due to its negative ethnic connotations. As a Slavic person, I do not want my ethnicity to be associated with forced servitude or associated with the forced servitude of other cultural groups. I don't expect this language to disappear but I believe this is a conversation that needs to be started to bring awareness to this issue.Thinkplay (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at this talk page. One editor said this in 2013: “I can assure you that, as a native speaker of British English, for me there is absolutely no connection between the words ‘slave’ and ‘Slav’. They are pronounced differently, they refer to fundamentally different things, and I feel confident in saying that there is no link in either the modern English language or the modern English mind between slaves and Slavs: not in popular conceptions, not in politics, not in propaganda.“ If reliable sources can be found to the contrary, or reliable sources saying the term “slave” is viewed by some people as racist, then maybe we should include those reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant The ethnonym word association of "Slav" and "slave" is already documented in the existing article. It says "The word slave is derived from the ethnonym (ethnic name) Slav.[11][12][13]". Here are the references: 11. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition 1989, s.v. slave 12. ^ "slave | Origin and meaning of slave by Online Etymology Dictionary". www.etymonline.com. Retrieved June 11, 2020. 13. ^ "Slave definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary". www.collinsdictionary.com. Retrieved June 11, 2020. . If there are different opinions, then both point opinions can be expressed with their supporting evidence. Thinkplay (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thinkplay, My family is from southern Poland western Ukraine so I get where you're coming from. I'm sure we can discuss this and find a solution, but we do work by consensus and guidelines. Have you read our guidelines on terminology?

btw, I forget to say, welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy building the encyclopedia.  // Timothy :: talk  04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue Thanks for the welcome and hearing me out. I did find a page entitled "List_of_policies_and_guidelines". Is this the document you are referring to? If this proposal will be considered for inclusion with some revisions, I am vested to see this though to completion. Thinkplay (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why your proposal wouldn't be considered (not necessarily accepted). For the best chance at success, you should try and have:

1. A clear proposal (I'm still not sure what you would like to change, remove or add).
2. Sources that support the proposal you're suggesting.
3. Guidelines that support the change you're suggesting.

Finding guidelines to support your proposal might be the most challenging, I'm not sure Wikipedia guidelines support what your proposing (but as I mentioned, I'm not entirely sure about what your proposing, so I might be wrong).  // Timothy :: talk  05:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue Sorry for failing to make my proposal clear. There is an existing article on "Slavery". In the "Slavery" article, there is a section called "Terminology". Under the "Terminology section, it explains the etymology of the term "slave" as coming from the ethnonym "Slav". i.e. the Latin word "servus" was replaced by the name of an ethnic group. “The taking of slaves and furs down Russian rivers resulted in significant Norse cultural influence there and in the substitution of the ethnic word slav to replace the Latin serves for ‘slave’” (The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1; Volume 7m, p. 674). The proposal is to expand this existing "Terminology" section to include an explanation of why this term can be offensive for the following reasons: 1) the Slav ethnic group is associated with the negative concept of forced servitude as per the etymology. 2) In using to word to apply to other people groups it misappropriates Slavic culture and history by definition 3) It perpetuates bigotry towards Slavic people who have experienced a long history of Slavophobia and anti-Slavic sentiment. There is already existing article on Anti-Slavic sentiment that contain references. I believe the appropriate guideline would be "Offensive material" since the word is derogatory toward Slavic people without a disclaimer.

• So if I understand correctly, you wish a statement included that some individuals find the term offensive because of its historical origins? Anythingyouwant comment above is certainly relevant to this, historically the term may have been considered offensive in its original form, much like the word "Christian" was originally used in a derrogatory fashion, but the term has evolved so much, certainly in English, that the inclusion seems like it does not meets the weight guideline. Do you have sources that show this is widely understood in English as derogatory? Points 2 and 3 above would also need sources that meet weight.  // Timothy :: talk  10:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Did this word derive from the historical English word for the Slavic people? A quick search didn't reveal the history. If it is a true controversy (source?) then it is certainly within scope for this article. Lfstevens (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)